PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND PRACTICES - COLUMN 160
Topical Index-Table of Contents to the Professional Ethics and Practices Columns
A topically based Index-Table of Contents, “pe&p index.xls” cov ering columns, articles, and letters to the editor that have been referred to in the PE&P columns in Excel format is on the AIPG web site in the Ethics section. This Index-Table of Contents is updated as each issue of the TPG is published. You can use it to find those items addressing a particular area of concern. Suggestions for improvements should be sent to David Abbott,
dmageol@msn.com
Compiled by David M. Abbott, Jr., CPG-04570, 5055 Tamarac Street, Denver, CO 80238, 303-394-0321, fax 303-394-0543,
dmageol@msn.com
USGS Inorganic Geochemical Lab Manipulated Data and Proving Your Data are Accurate
On June 15, 2016, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the US Department of Interior issued a final report, “Inspection of scientific integrity incident at USGS energy geochemis- try laboratory,” Report No. 2016-EAU- 010,
https://www.doioig.gov/reports/ inspection-scientific-integrity-incident- usgs-energy-geochemistry-laboratory, accessed 7/16/16. The brief results of the report are, ‘We initiated this inspec- tion to determine the impacts of a scientific integrity incident involving a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) labora- tory. The incident specifically concerned accusations of scientific misconduct and data manipulation by a mass spectrom- eter operator assigned to the Energy Resources Program’s (ERP) Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, CO, in the Energy and Minerals Mission Area. The matter was discovered in late 2014, but had been taking place since 2008. This was the second such incident involving the same laboratory.
“The Inorganic Section’s work has implications for ERP’s national and international coal and water quality assessments. Our review revealed that the impacts were far ranging, and includ- ed:
publications that were retracted or delayed because of inaccurate information;
potential damaged reputations of USGS and individual scientists;
potential lost collaborations with outside organizations;
diminished employee morale; and
reduced public trust of USGS- generated information.
“USGS is assessing the full impact of the incident on its research and assess- ment projects, an undertaking that will take time to complete. In addition, the Bureau has been notifying the affected customers, journals, and other end users, a protracted process that remains incom- plete. USGS is pursuing disciplinary actions for the responsible staff.”
The OIG report described “two instances in which mass spectrometer operators in the laboratory had violated established laboratory practices without detection for many years. The initial incident involved scientific misconduct that began in 1996 and continued undis- covered until 2008. The second incident began in 2008 and continued undiscov- ered until late 2014.”
“Following discovery of the second incident, ERP management issued a stop work order for the laboratory and began an internal investigation. The USGS Office of Science Quality and Integrity likewise issued a stop work order and initiated an ‘inquiry’ in accordance with departmental policy. As part of the inquiry, USGS convened a Scientific Integrity Review Panel to further inves- tigate the matter. The report of inquiry concluded that the laboratory had a ‘chronic pattern of scientific misconduct’ and that ‘data produced by the Inorganic Section were intentionally manipulated by the line-chemist in charge.’ The iden- tified issues predominantly affected coal and water quality research and related assessments.”
The OIG’s report “determined that the scientific misconduct and data manipu- lation at the lab also impacted USGS organizational integrity in ways that are still unfolding and challenging to quantify.” That’s putting it mildly. Now
anyone disputing a USGS finding or a policy proposal based on USGS data will cite this report as evidence that USGS data cannot be relied upon.
One wonders why the perpetrators haven’t been publicly named and run out of the scientific community covered in tar and feathers. However, having been involved in the investigation of fraud and allegations of ethical misconduct for over 40 years, I know that develop- ing the evidence to support a solid case takes far more time and effort than one would wish.
The ultimate result of this incident will be increased demands that geosci- entists, including those employed by the USGS and state surveys, be able to prove that their data are reliable. Discussion of sample preparation, analysis, secu- rity, and verification are now routine parts of the technical reports prepared for mining companies.1 I discussed this issue in “Assuring the reliability of your sampling results,” TPG pp. 33-38, and in columns 114 (Mar/Apr assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures is the collection of duplicate samples that are independently ana- lyzed, preferably by a separate labora- tory from the laboratory doing most of the analytical work.
Even when data manipulation or sample salting is not a problem, there are a variety of issues involved with sample collection, handling, preparation, and analysis that can lead to unintentional but unreliable results. The point of QA/ QC procedures is to identify and elimi- nate these sources of unreliability as soon as possible and, once reliable pro- cedures are demonstrated, to continue to test the sampling and analytical pro- cedures to determine whether problems
1. See for example Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Form F1, contents of a technical report, and the 2014 SME Guide for Reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources, and Mineral Reserves, Table 1, item 4. Sampling.
2. Robert E. Tepel, 2012, LXIII: the “primacy clause.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
